I agree with all that, Brendan, except this last bit. Foreign religions are of great interest to him. They are all valid external expressions of the vital immanence which is the source of all religion in Modernist theory. He respects them all, and desires that nobody should think otherwise.

My expectation is that he will be absolutely no trouble to trads, except insofar as we represent a threat to his own religion. Summorum Pontificum was and is a problem, because it represents competition for air-time for the Novus Ordo Missae with his own flock. He was content to introduce in his own diocese one Tridentine Mass, celebrated by somebody who didn't like it, and with the epistle and gospel from the Novus Ordo missal, showing that he was not going to tolerate any incursion by the true religion into his turf. "If you like a bit of Latin and some different prayers, fine, but don't think for a moment you're going to practice that old religion here."

For this reason I think the Indult crowd might find life interesting, but the SSPX will probably never hear from him. Bishop Fellay will have to knock his door in to get any attention.

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:38 am

Benedictus

Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:32 pmPosts: 35Location: Belgium

Re: Bergoglio information

Ken Gordon wrote:

It would really be nice to know what God's reason(s) are.

To purify the children of the Church.

Our fathers were not yet ready to see the Kingship of Christ universally acknowledged and honoured, because too many proper interests still had their influence too firmly rooted, poisonous roots which are now being cut down by the miseries of exile.

We, their children, have seen the horrors of a society which has thrown off the sweet yoke of Christ, and the reminiscence of this will, by God's grace, not be erased, but passed on to the children of the next generation, so that they might rebuild the desolate temples, restore the violated altars and light the candles of the Faith in the tenebrous wastelands where the Cross was rejected in favour of the "cult of man". It must, however, be accompanied with the fragrant incense of a people that is not satisfied with merely fulfilling external precepts, but which is wounded with an ardent love for God and neighbour. And this is the good that Our Beloved Lord is drawing from the evils of the present.

John Lane wrote:

For this reason I think the Indult crowd might find life interesting, but the SSPX will probably never hear from him.

I think you are right when you say that he will probably not bother luring the SSPX into an agreement. Who knows, he might even encourage them to stay outside because he "respects their expression of religious feeling".

_________________I reject and curse sedevacantism, and I condemn all the iniquitous things that I have written on this forum against the Catholic Church and the Popes recognised by the universal and visible Episcopate. The Papacy of HH. Francis is a dogmatic fact.

Last edited by Benedictus on Wed Apr 10, 2013 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Key passage from that, I think Cristian: "Speaking to ámbito.com the theologian gave details of what was in that first conversation and two subsequent face to face meetings, that describe a priori the Pope's thinking on [unnatural] marriage. "I want to say I'm largely in agreement with your letter, but I do not think you need to change the law of marriage. Argentina is not yet ripe for that, but I do believe that people of sexual diversity have to have rights. I am rather in favor of of a civil union," Marquez says Bergoglio told him.

I am not sure about this passage: "aunque no creo que lo que tenga que salir es la ley de matrimonio." Is what I have roughly the sense of it, Cristian?

Just to put this in context for others, what happened was that this activist (and so-called Catholic theologian) Mr. Marquez wrote an open letter to Bertoglio during the controversy over "[unnatural] marriage" and then decided to take a copy directly to Bertoglio, who received him very warmly and said all manner of scandalous things to the poor fellow, leading him to believe that his sin is not a sin at all. The key passage, above, informs us that Bertoglio's real views are not what might have been taken from the letter he wrote to the nuns which Rorate and others have posted: no, what Bertoglio really thinks is that this sin ought to be approved, but not treated as identical with marriage. It's the treating of a different (unnatural) union as identical with marriage, instead of as a different (but also good) thing which Bertoglio opposed. "I am rather in favor of of a civil union."

Echoes of Dignitatis Humanae here:

Vatican II wrote:

Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.

Over and above all this, the council intends to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society.

This is precisely what they did at V2. They side-stepped the doctrine of the Church (well, one doctrine of the Church - they trashed different ones instead, those dealing with Church-state relations), which treats of the obligation all men have of seeking and embracing truth, and addressed in isolation the question of civil rights. At least, that was the attempted procedure. It was not in the end either cogent or successful, since the text was internally contradictory and did not leave untouched the traditional doctrine on men's moral duties. But that was the procedure, that was what was attempted.

Now Bertoglio is attempting the same impossible thing in relation to unnatural unions. He says to the nuns, and to Marquez, do not touch marriage, marriage is sacred and it is a very specific thing. It has to do exclusively with the union of a man and a woman. Instead, ask for civil unions to be recognised as their own thing. To the nuns he dresses this in some religious language that they will find attractive (war on God etc.) and to Marquez he clothes it in the amoral language of secularism. But the message is fundamentally identical.

This approach goes to the heart of the modern revolt against the Church, against God. The attack has focussed on the natural order, not on religion as such. Modernism is really a false philosophy, which of course wrecks theology in turn. But it is precisely because it is a complex of philosophical error that it constitutes the synthesis of all heresies. All heresies find their home in it, as birds in a tree.

In this way God is being essentially ignored rather than attacked. He is being excluded from public life, His revelation is being treated as optional rather than denied directly. He can have Sunday, so to speak, but not the rest of the week. He is being dethroned. We will not have this man to reign over us! The "Catholic" version of this is: we can have laws which recognise unnatural vice as good and acceptable, as long as we do not directly attack one of God's institutions, marriage.

Bizarre!

And just watch the "conservatives" defend this, as they defended Dignitatis Humanae, if and when it gets some air time.

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:36 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Bergoglio information

Benedictus wrote:

To purify the children of the Church.

Our fathers were not yet ready to see the Kingship of Christ universally acknowledged and honoured, because too many proper interests still had their influence too firmly rooted, poisonous roots which are now being cut down by the miseries of exile.

We, their children, have seen the horrors of a society which has thrown off the sweet yoke of Christ, and the reminescence of this will, by God's grace, not be erased, but passed on to the children of the next generation, so that they might rebuild the desolate temples, restore the violated altars and light the candles of the Faith in the tenebrous wastelands where the Cross was rejected in favour of the "cult of man". It must, however, be accompanied with the fragrant incense of a people that is not satisfied with merely fulfilling external precepts, but which is wounded with an ardent love for God and neighbour. And this is the good that Our Beloved Lord is drawing from the evils of the present.

That's it! This is what I tried to express in my speech to the CMRI conference five years ago. Mankind is going to be so seared by this current experience and what follows inevitably from it, that we will turn firmly to God, chastened and humbled. How long we will maintain those dispositions is another question!

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:46 pm

Cristian Jacobo

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pmPosts: 552Location: Argentina

Re: Bergoglio information

John Lane wrote:

Key passage from that, I think Cristian: "Speaking to ámbito.com the theologian gave details of what was in that first conversation and two subsequent face to face meetings, that describe a priori the Pope's thinking on [unnatural] marriage. "I want to say I'm largely in agreement with your letter, but I do not think you need to change the law of marriage. Argentina is not yet ripe for that, but I do believe that people of sexual diversity have to have rights. I am rather in favor of of a civil union," Marquez says Bergoglio told him.

I am not sure about this passage: "aunque no creo que lo que tenga que salir es la ley de matrimonio." Is what I have roughly the sense of it, Cristian?

Literally it says: "although I don´t think we have to have the law on (unnatural) matrimony", but then Bergo adds: "because society is not yet ready to accept it" and so he supported the civil union instead. Back in 2010 they were discussing the approval of unnatural marriage (which they got it anyway).

What is happening now is that people, some of whom call themselves theologians, are trying to defend sodomy theologically, which basically means that they are making it a heresy, instead of just a sin that is committed while admitting that it is a hideous act against natural law.

It is the kind of intellectual depravity that would not dare to rear it's ugly head in a society where Christendom is still grounded in the societal sphere to a degree, but now that she is reduced to the domestic sphere because of the ingratitude of men, this is the kind of thing that emerges from the abyss of chaos and revolt which has captured society into it's sickly embrace.

St. Paul was certainly right when he spoke of the cause of unnatural vice. It is the pride of rejecting God and the order willed by Him to kiss the baäls of false liberty.

_________________I reject and curse sedevacantism, and I condemn all the iniquitous things that I have written on this forum against the Catholic Church and the Popes recognised by the universal and visible Episcopate. The Papacy of HH. Francis is a dogmatic fact.

Lance, "Laboure" is not really a trad, is she? I had the impression that she flip-flops from Novus to Tridentine etc. As for what Binx and needleduck said at the end there, about liking his face and his manner, I agree with them. I also agree with them on Ratzinger's evil looking mug. It's always astonished me that anybody can think of him as lovable. He has an awful look about him, really quite creepy. Francis is a whole different kettle of fish. Genuinely charming, an attractive character. Kindly face, nice smile. Makes one want to think well of him. Which makes him more dangerous in one way.

But I can't see trads getting suckered by him. He's too obviously a heretic. Imagine if it was a friendly looking bloke like him that was doing the whole faux-trad thing that The Rat was doing!

Interesting point. Perhaps that's because The Rat is sneakier and more evil than Casual Frank. The Rat, after all, was actively trying to sucker trads into the Novus Ordo with his motu proprio and his courting of the SSPX. In his writings, he actively tries to mix Catholic belief with modernism into a whole new witch's brew. It's no surprise his eyes and smile look like that.

Casual Frank, OTOH, doesn't seem to be into all that. He's the leader of the Novus Ordo sect, and what trads believe is not important to him. He could just as well be the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury; trads are a foreign religion to him, and none of his concern.

All of this information has greatly dismayed me, but I am not surprised. When he refused to wear the red hat (forgot the correct term and I'm too lazy to go look it up...), I had a feeling this would not bode well. And you are correct in that this pope is the leader of the n.o. sect. The modernists in the Church must be so pleased...

Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:00 am

Recusant

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pmPosts: 284

Re: Bergoglio information

He makes a mockery of our Lord and His Church. He washed the feet of two woman, a Schmatic, and a Muslim!

Read the posts of the guy called "anonymous coward User ID: 34595220", I think this is rather interesting.

That was posted almost a month before Bergo`s election.

This guy just shows up in page 1. There a lot of garbish in the other comments.

This is very interesting, CJ.

Apparently Frankie is also supposed to be the last novus ordo "pope". He definitely is dissolving the papacy into something more like the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, who is "first among equals" but has no real power over the Anglican church.

This is actually good news for us. Real Catholics will become even more suspicious when there is no pope any more.

Read the posts of the guy called "anonymous coward User ID: 34595220", I think this is rather interesting.

That was posted almost a month before Bergo`s election.

This guy just shows up in page 1. There a lot of garbage in the other comments.

This is very interesting, CJ.

Yes. It most certainly is! I wonder how he got his information?

Brendan wrote:

Apparently Frankie is also supposed to be the last novus ordo "pope". He definitely is dissolving the papacy into something more like the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, who is "first among equals" but has no real power over the Anglican church.

Yes...apparently...

Brendan wrote:

This is actually good news for us. Real Catholics will become even more suspicious when there is no pope any more.

No. It will take far more than that to wake most of them up...if there really are any left to wake up. Most of them have become protestants without realizing it, and firmly believe all that Novus Ordo balderdash.

_________________Kenneth G. Gordon

Thu Apr 04, 2013 6:06 pm

Benedictus

Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:32 pmPosts: 35Location: Belgium

Re: Bergoglio information

If they want Bergoglio to be the last conciliar pseudo-pope, then that raises the question of what they are planning to replace the pseudo-papacy with.

_________________I reject and curse sedevacantism, and I condemn all the iniquitous things that I have written on this forum against the Catholic Church and the Popes recognised by the universal and visible Episcopate. The Papacy of HH. Francis is a dogmatic fact.

Thu Apr 04, 2013 6:20 pm

TKGS

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 amPosts: 391Location: Indiana, USA

Re: Bergoglio information

Benedictus wrote:

If they want Bergoglio to be the last conciliar pseudo-pope, then that raises the question of what they are planning to replace the pseudo-papacy with.

He's been replaced with "the bishop of Rome". Haven't you been listening to him?

The only problem is that most people still equate "the bishop of Rome" with the pope. Until, I think, they change the Novus Ordo "Eucharistic Prayers" and either remove any reference to the pope or replace that word with "the bishop of Rome", it will not actually change the people's thinking.

I just wonder how long it will take before such actions are taken. Somehow, I think formally changing the morality of sodomy and instituting the deaconesses, priestesses, and bishopettes will have a higher priority.

Thu Apr 04, 2013 6:33 pm

Benedictus

Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 7:32 pmPosts: 35Location: Belgium

Re: Bergoglio information

TKGS wrote:

He's been replaced with "the bishop of Rome". Haven't you been listening to him?

I am aware of the febronianist implications of his words and actions.

But if that is what was meant with 'the last pope', would they not have designated Ratzinger as such instead of Bergoglio? It appears to me that the context here is that they are planning to, unambiguously, terminate the present chain of succession which started with Roncalli. And if that is true, then I wonder what they are going to replace it with.

But I could of course be mistaken.

_________________I reject and curse sedevacantism, and I condemn all the iniquitous things that I have written on this forum against the Catholic Church and the Popes recognised by the universal and visible Episcopate. The Papacy of HH. Francis is a dogmatic fact.

CJ, definitely very odd. He was very confident that he had real information.

User ID: 34595220 wrote:

He's gonna be argentinian, don't know exactly which one but i know this for sure, wait till it becomes true!:)

User ID: 34595220 wrote:

Open Your Eyes wrote:

That would be

Leonardo Sandri

I am guessing Sandri or Bergoglio.

User ID: 34595220 wrote:

Open Your Eyes wrote:

Why are you thinking Argentina will be the country?

I have my info, this isn't a guessing.

User ID: 34595220 wrote:

Open Your Eyes wrote:

Anything can happen in the conclave

Then you have no idea what's going on with our world.Everything is pre-planned, everything.

User ID: 34595220 wrote:

Open Your Eyes wrote:

Does your group control the timeline?

I don't belong to any group and don't control any timeline, i just have my info from a "very close to Vatican" person.I may say it was most incidentally that i got it..Wait for it as it happens.

User ID: 34595220 wrote:

Open Your Eyes wrote:

And the strategy behind picking the Argentina candidate is...

Well, it's a very long explanation, but i can sum it up.The US wants to control again South America after losing their influence. (see Venezuela, Brazil, and many others)

Aswell my source stated that this next pope will be the last one.

That's all my info on this.

User ID: 34595220 wrote:

Open Your Eyes wrote:

Well if they want to control South America they could also pick the Brazil candidate (Odilo Pedro Scherer)

I know that, I have no idea why they've picked Argentina, that's the explanation I've been given, I may be able to get more info on it this next week.He'll be the last pope, implying that Rome might be destroyed as prophecised, which kind of shocked me to hear.

_________________In Christ our King.

Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:28 am

Brendan

Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:44 amPosts: 76

Re: Bergoglio information

John Lane wrote:

CJ, definitely very odd. He was very confident that he had real information.

User ID: 34595220 wrote:

Open Your Eyes wrote:

And the strategy behind picking the Argentina candidate is...

Well, it's a very long explanation, but i can sum it up.The US wants to control again South America after losing their influence. (see Venezuela, Brazil, and many others)

Aswell my source stated that this next pope will be the last one.

That's all my info on this.

Not quite sure what they mean by "the U.S. wants to control South America again". Does he mean that the U.S. controls the Vatican, and by electing Frankie, it hopes to control South America by way of Frankie?

John Lane wrote:

User ID: 34595220 wrote:

Open Your Eyes wrote:

Well if they want to control South America they could also pick the Brazil candidate (Odilo Pedro Scherer)

I know that, I have no idea why they've picked Argentina, that's the explanation I've been given, I may be able to get more info on it this next week.He'll be the last pope, implying that Rome might be destroyed as prophecised, which kind of shocked me to hear.

Nah, the source seems to have missed the implication: I don't think Rome is meant to be destroyed... Frankie's repeatedly calling himself the "bishop of Rome", his eschewing of the term "pope", and his informality suggest that the novus ordo is transitioning out of having a pope altogether. My guess is that the next novus ordo leader may not even call himself "pope" any more at all, switching over to "bishop of Rome" entirely.

I think Argentina was picked simply because it is Spanish-speaking, and therefore Bergo will have an appeal to Latin Americans all the way up to Mexico, and including Brazil, which has always had good relations with Argentina. A Brazilian might not have quite the same pull with Latinos as Bergoglio does. So, by electing an Argentine, the idea is to tranquilize Latin America, where the largest numbers of Catholics in the world now live, against rebellion to the novus ordo; perhaps also to slow down conversions from the novus ordo to protestantism and mormonism. This was similar to the reason for their selection of Wojtyla to serve a quarter century as novus ordo pope, namely, to tranquilize the staunchly Catholic and anti-Communist Polish people.

By doing so, they also appear to be giving up on Europe, leaving it for dead. Hopefully, that means that traditional Catholicism will regain a foothold in Europe, perhaps including Poland.

Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:37 am

Cristian Jacobo

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pmPosts: 552Location: Argentina

Re: Bergoglio information

Brendan wrote:

John Lane wrote:

CJ, definitely very odd. He was very confident that he had real information.

Well, it's a very long explanation, but i can sum it up.The US wants to control again South America after losing their influence. (see Venezuela, Brazil, and many others)

Aswell my source stated that this next pope will be the last one.

That's all my info on this.

Quote:

Not quite sure what they mean by "the U.S. wants to control South America again".

Neither me. They control South America anyway. In any case I recall the very day Bergo was elected a very well known leftist wrote in tweeter (!) that Bergo was elected by "the imperialists" in order to destroy the "popular" governments of Latin America. This guy has very good ties with Iran and former president Chavez, so I guess he may have some good sources, I don´t know. So the coincidence among these two guys is interesting.

John Lane wrote:

User ID: 34595220 wrote:

Open Your Eyes wrote:

Well if they want to control South America they could also pick the Brazil candidate (Odilo Pedro Scherer)

I know that, I have no idea why they've picked Argentina, that's the explanation I've been given, I may be able to get more info on it this next week.He'll be the last pope, implying that Rome might be destroyed as prophecised, which kind of shocked me to hear.

Quote:

Nah, the source seems to have missed the implication: I don't think Rome is meant to be destroyed... Frankie's repeatedly calling himself the "bishop of Rome", his eschewing of the term "pope", and his informality suggest that the novus ordo is transitioning out of having a pope altogether. My guess is that the next novus ordo leader may not even call himself "pope" any more at all, switching over to "bishop of Rome" entirely.

Indeed the fact Bergo is the last one doesn´t mean necessarily that Rome will be destroyed, it may just mean that the papacy as we know it will be over. I don´t know. Time will tell.

It is clear that the conciliar construction was only created as a transitional entity towards a world parliament of religions. The 'last pope' remark seems to imply that they consider the transitional entity to have lost it's purpose because the end for which they constructed it has been reached, ready to be unleashed upon the world.

I think we should keep our eyes on Jerusalem, which is were the son of perdition will have his throne. My understanding is that his false prophet is the one who will dwell in neo-pagan Rome, as has already been mentioned.

It should be mentioned that Bergoglio is going to visit Jerusalem with a schismatic leader. Politics are obviously going to be discussed with him during that visit.

_________________I reject and curse sedevacantism, and I condemn all the iniquitous things that I have written on this forum against the Catholic Church and the Popes recognised by the universal and visible Episcopate. The Papacy of HH. Francis is a dogmatic fact.

Indeed the fact Bergo is the last one doesn´t mean necessarily that Rome will be destroyed, it may just mean that the papacy as we know it will be over. I don´t know. Time will tell.

I read it very differently, I think, and I base my thinking on at least one dogmatic pronouncement by the legitimate Church.

One of the dogmatic pronouncements of Vatican Council I (One) was this: "If anyone says that Blessed Peter will not have perpetual successors until the end of time, AS." (For those who may not know, AS=Anathema Sit, which, in English, literally means "Let him go to hell.")

Therefore, on this basis and other like information, it should be obvious that "the last pope" simply means "the last anti-pope in this particular string of anti-popes which began with Roncalli"

According to my reading, the Church must have a True Pope until the end of time.

Also, according to my reading, this last string of anti-popes is (as I have insisted several times) the Precursor of Anti-Christ mentioned in the Apocalypse.

If this is so, and I believe it is, then the next step can only be the appearance of "The Man of Sin", The Anti-Christ who will eventually hold all worldly power; economic, military, and religious.

According to Daniel and others, once he does manifest himself, he will have exactly 1260 days, or as some say, 3 years, 6 months, and 22 days (which is actually 1297 days), to work his worst.

I would love to be able to see, with my bodily eyes, that evil man and all his cohorts thrust bodily into hell by St. Michael, as has been told to us.

I love St. Michael. He is my Captain. I truly wish I could wield a sword like his and like he will do.

At the same time, I hope some of us survive the persecutions of The Anti-Christ and his cohorts.

_________________Kenneth G. Gordon

Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:10 pm

Cristian Jacobo

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pmPosts: 552Location: Argentina

Re: Bergoglio information

Ken Gordon wrote:

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

Indeed the fact Bergo is the last one doesn´t mean necessarily that Rome will be destroyed, it may just mean that the papacy as we know it will be over. I don´t know. Time will tell.

I read it very differently, I think, and I base my thinking on at least one dogmatic pronouncement by the legitimate Church.

One of the dogmatic pronouncements of Vatican Council I (One) was this: "If anyone says that Blessed Peter will not have perpetual successors until the end of time, AS." (For those who may not know, AS=Anathema Sit, which, in English, literally means "Let him go to hell.")

Therefore, on this basis and other like information, it should be obvious that "the last pope" simply means "the last anti-pope in this particular string of anti-popes which began with Roncalli"

I agree Ken! What I meant was that the structure of the Novus ordo church will be replaced by something different than a unique head. I wasn`t saying or implying that there will be no more Pope.

Quote:

According to my reading, the Church must have a True Pope until the end of time.

I believe the same and I think there is a mention of a Pope in the escatological discourse of Our Lord as we can read in Mark 13.

Quote:

Also, according to my reading, this last string of anti-popes is (as I have insisted several times) the Precursor of Anti-Christ mentioned in the Apocalypse.

I tend to believe Bergo either is or is the precursor of the Beast of the Earth. We`ll see.

I agree Ken! What I meant was that the structure of the Novus ordo church will be replaced by something different than a unique head.

Yes. I understood that, Christian. I was "clarifying" for others, not you.

Cristian Jacobo wrote:

I tend to believe Bergo either is or is the precursor of the Beast of the Earth. We`ll see.

Oh! It took me a couple of days to realize what you said here! Yes. That is a thought at which I had not arrived.

Yet, on the other hand, if we read the Apocalypse correctly, The Anti-Christ is to rise "out of the sea", meaning the generality of the population of the earth. This indicates to me that he will not be anyone of importance nor even known at all, to begin with.

That would automatically, to my mind, cut out the purported head of the "Catholic" Church.

To serve its people, Bergoglio says, religion has the right to its say over certain topics in private and public life. “What [the religious minister] does not have a right to do is to force the private life of anyone,” he says. “If God, in his creation, ran the risk of making us free, who am I to butt in?”

“We condemn the spiritual harassment that happens when a minister imposes directives, behaviors, requirements in such a way that deprive the other of freedom,” Bergoglio says.

Tue Apr 09, 2013 5:48 pm

Cristian Jacobo

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pmPosts: 552Location: Argentina

Re: Bergoglio information

Robert Bastaja wrote:

How can any Catholic defend this?

Quote:

To serve its people, Bergoglio says, religion has the right to its say over certain topics in private and public life. “What [the religious minister] does not have a right to do is to force the private life of anyone,” he says. “If God, in his creation, ran the risk of making us free, who am I to butt in?”

“We condemn the spiritual harassment that happens when a minister imposes directives, behaviors, requirements in such a way that deprive the other of freedom,” Bergoglio says.

Francis’ now well-known humility comes across as he describes his response when meeting a nonbeliever.

“When I meet with people who are atheists, I share human issues with them, but I don’t bring up the problem of God right away, except in cases when they bring it up with me,” Bergoglio says.

If that happens, however, the future pope says he tells them why he is a believer. Since humanity is something rich enough to be shared, he and the person can calmly and easily discuss experiences in life.

“Because I am a believer, I know these riches are a gift from God,” Bergoglio says. “I also know that the other person, the atheist, does not know that. I do not embark on the relationship to proselytize to an atheist, I respect him and I show him how I am.”

He also states that while knowledge is present, good qualities such as appreciation, affection and friendship emerge.

“I am not reluctant in any way. I would not tell him that his life is condemned because I am convinced that I have no right to pass judgment on the honesty of the person,” Bergoglio says. “Even less so if he shows me human virtues that make people better and are done in goodwill toward me.”

Bergoglio is firm in his insistence that consistency is necessary regarding the Bible’s message: “Every man is an image of God, be he a believer or not. With that reason alone, he has a number of virtues, qualities, riches. And in the case that he has morally low qualities, as I have as well, we can share them with each other to help us overcome them together.”

Skorka agrees, though he adds that he believes an atheist takes a position of arrogance as is also the case of a person who proclaims with certainty that God exists. The ideal position is one of doubt, Skorka says, like that of agnostics or believers who have moments of doubt.

“We religious people are believers, we don’t posit [God’s] existence as fact,” Skorka says. “We can perceive him in a very, very, quite profound experience, but we never see him.”

“To say that God exists, if it were but a certainty, is also arrogant, regardless of how much I believe that God exists,” he explains.

Skorka goes on to say that one can talk about God’s qualities and attributes, but one can never really give God form or shape in any way. Both men agree that instead of saying what God is, people usually end up describing the many things God is not.

Bergoglio mentions a book titled The Cloud of Unknowing, written by English mystics who attempt, “time and time again, to describe God and always end up signaling what he is not.”

He continues this line of thought by saying that while one may have a spiritual experience and feel certain that God is present, the experience itself is uncontrollable.

“This is why in the experience of God, there is always a question, a space to make the leap of faith,” he concludes.

Both the foregoing, and the following, constitute unvarnished Modernism.

Quote:

A priest dictator “weakens and holds back people in the search for God,” Bergoglio says. A true teacher “will let his disciple go and he will walk with him in his spiritual life.”

Skorka speaks of certain Jewish circles where fundamentalism is rampant, meaning that when the teacher says to do something, the followers don’t have any other choice but to comply. “Things are a certain way and they are not discussed, they cannot be any other way,” Skorka says.

“These leaders hold back the religiousness that should emanate from the most intimate depths of a person; they dictate the lives of others.”

Bergoglio posits that this type of rigid religiosity “disguises itself with doctrines that pretend to give justifications, but really deprive people of freedom and will not allow them to grow.”

“Fundamentalism is not what God wants,” Bergoglio says.

Compare with St. Pius X's description of the foundation of all Modernist "religion":

Quote:

Modernists place the foundation of religious philosophy in that doctrine which is commonly called Agnosticism. According to this teaching human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena, that is to say, to things that appear, and in the manner in which they appear: it has neither the right nor the power to overstep these limits.

...

However, this Agnosticism is only the negative part of the system of the Modernists: the positive part consists in what they call vital immanence. Thus they advance from one to the other. Religion, whether natural or supernatural, must, like every other fact, admit of some explanation. But when natural theology has been destroyed, and the road to revelation closed by the rejection of the arguments of credibility, and all external revelation absolutely denied, it is clear that this explanation will be sought in vain outside of man himself. It must, therefore, be looked for in man; and since religion is a form of life, the explanation must certainly be found in the life of man. In this way is formulated the principle of religious immanence. Moreover, the first actuation, so to speak, of every vital phenomenon -- and religion, as noted above, belongs to this category -- is due to a certain need or impulsion; but speaking more particularly of life, it has its origin in a movement of the heart, which movement is called a sense. Therefore, as God is the object of religion, we must conclude that faith, which is the basis and foundation of all religion, must consist in a certain interior sense, originating in a need of the divine. This need of the divine, which is experienced only in special and favorable circumstances. cannot of itself appertain to the domain of consciousness, but is first latent beneath consciousness, or, to borrow a term from modern philosophy, in the subconsciousness, where also its root lies hidden and undetected.

There is nothing new under the sun. But Bergoglio's theology really is just worn-out, tattered, old-fashioned, Modernism. It's the garbage thinking of the late Nineteenth Century, long since condemned and rendered not just odious, but ridiculous, by the penetrating analysis of St. Pius X.

Here's another one: Both I and our son (whom you met) are wondering how this plays out theologically? To me, it seems, clearly, another abdication of the Papal Prerogative: i.e., that he is continuing, and expanding upon, his heresy that the "pope" is simply one among all the other bishops. This is pure protestantism, in my opinion, but I am no theologian either.

Oh my, Pell's on the committee. Is Bergoglio scraping the bottom of the barrel for talent?

_________________In Christ our King.

Sun Apr 14, 2013 1:22 am

James Francis

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:27 pmPosts: 80

Re: Bergoglio information

Should give the lie to anyone who still thinks Pell is some sort of conservative, although its been a very long time since I met anyone maintaining that particular fiction. Even the neocons I know have contempt for him.

Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:52 am

Brendan

Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2012 12:44 amPosts: 76

Re: Bergoglio information

John Lane wrote:

There is nothing new under the sun. But Bergoglio's theology really is just worn-out, tattered, old-fashioned, Modernism. It's the garbage thinking of the late Nineteenth Century, long since condemned and rendered not just odious, but ridiculous, by the penetrating analysis of St. Pius X.

Exactly. But Modernists are never able to explain why the "need for the divine" exists. Everything has a purpose. Biologists used to talk about "vestigial organs", but they all have eventually been shown to have some purpose. Yet somehow, one of the driving forces of human history, the need for the divine, is just a figment of our collective imagination?

What is even more shocking is that Modernism is far more entrenched and prevalent now than it was a hundred years ago, during St. Pius X's time. I suspect that is because of the Modernist trait of spouting nonsense nonstop as if it was self-evident truth, with absolutely nothing else to back it up.

Sun Apr 14, 2013 9:09 pm

RobertJS

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:18 pmPosts: 73Location: New England

Re: Bergoglio information

This is how I personally view someone like Bergoglio, newly elected....but let me take a step back first.

In the days before Vatican II, the pious Catholic way of life was to unquestioningly assent to whatever came from the hierarchy, from the lowly parish delegates, to their parish priest, on up the line to the local Bishop and then to the pope. There was no scrutiny and fear of what came from them. If something perchance was troublesome, it would naturally and spontaneously clash with the mind of one (or more) who had a strong grasp on principle, and the workings against error in the Mystical Body would work analogous to the biological immune system, often fixing something before hardly anyone really noticed, until a serious disease (heresy) struck.

Now, I see Bergoglio elected by a bunch of men all in love with ecumenism. My way of life is just the opposite than it was for Catholics pre-Vatican II. I am completely uninterested in what this man says or does. If perchance something officially orthodox and notably faithful were enacted in some overturning-type-of-way, it would hit me like a ton of bricks, and I would sit up and take notice. Essentially, there would have to be some real stirring that Vatican II was illegitimate. Until then, I personally find it utterly boring to discuss this man Bergoglio at all. Just my two cents, in case anyone wonders why I don't participate in such discussions.

“Today’s visit,” Pope Francis said, “strengthens the bonds of friendship and brotherhood that already exist between the See of Peter and the See of Mark, heir to an inestimable heritage of martyrs, theologians, holy monks and faithful disciples of Christ, who have borne witness to the Gospel from generation to generation, often in situations of great adversity.”

Quote:

“We are glad to be able to confirm today what our illustrious predecessors solemnly declared, we are glad to recognize that we are united by one Baptism, of which our common prayer is a special expression, and we long for the day when, in fulfilment of the Lord’s desire, we will be able to communicate from the one chalice.”

Quote:

“I am convinced that – under the guidance of the Holy Spirit – our persevering prayer, our dialogue and the will to build communion day by day in mutual love will allow us to take important further steps towards full unity,” the Holy Father said.

"Speaking to an Anglican conference in London, he also said the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev Justin Welby, had a “strange similarity” to the new Pope."

Thu May 16, 2013 7:57 am

Alan Aversa

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 amPosts: 438Location: Tucson, Arizona

primacy of human beings

He recently said:

Quote:

"...the financial crisis which we are experiencing makes us forget that its ultimate origin is to be found in a profound human crisis. In the denial of the primacy of human beings! We have created new idols. The worship of the golden calf of old (cf. Ex 32:15-34) has found a new and heartless image in the cult of money and the dictatorship of an economy which is faceless and lacking any truly humane goal..."

Regarding the bread and fishes I`d like to add a nuance: they didn´t multiply, no, it isn`t true. The breads simply didn´t run out. In the same way as the flour and oil of the widow didn´t run out. They didn´t run out. When one say "to multiply" he may get confused and think he makes magic (SIC!), no. No, no, the grandeur of God and the love he put in our hearts is simply such as, if we wish, what we have doesn´t run out. Trust very much on this

The cardinals are some of them the pastors of the chief parishes of Rome, and some the suburbican bishops (i.e. ordinaries of adjoining dioceses). They are, as a class, essentially those who aid the Roman Pontiff in governing Rome and the universal church. That is, they are all "auxiliaries" in the non-technical meaning of that term. The notion of an auxiliary bishop is a technical one, however, as you suggest, and brings with it problematical ideas like the right of succession(!), and whether the role extends to the universal church, and what his power is when the pope is absent from Rome, etc. I'm sure there are other issues too. What this means is anybody's guess, but mine is that it is a way of making Rome more like every other diocese.

This man is in love with novelty!

_________________In Christ our King.

Mon Jun 17, 2013 10:26 pm

Alan Aversa

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 amPosts: 438Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: Bergoglio information

John Lane wrote:

the right of succession(!)

This reminds me of the Dimond Bro.'s video on how the past "popes" are really kings:…

The cardinals are some of them the pastors of the chief parishes of Rome, and some the suburbican bishops (i.e. ordinaries of adjoining dioceses). They are, as a class, essentially those who aid the Roman Pontiff in governing Rome and the universal church. That is, they are all "auxiliaries" in the non-technical meaning of that term.

That`s exactly what I thought.

Quote:

The notion of an auxiliary bishop is a technical one, however, as you suggest, and brings with it problematical ideas like the right of succession(!)

Canons 350-355 deal with this subject.

Actually the auxiliary Bishop has no right of succession, and, in principle, his office ends with the end of the office of (in this case) Bergo.

They are titular Bishops.

Quote:

and whether the role extends to the universal church, and what his power is when the pope is absent from Rome, etc.

Indeed this is a mess! Because if by Bishop of Rome, Bergo understand the Universal Pastor, then the auxiliary will have (may have?) powers all over the world?

Quote:

I'm sure there are other issues too. What this means is anybody's guess, but mine is that it is a way of making Rome more like every other diocese.

Yes, that`s one possibility and I think the most likely one. The other option is that you have 2 Popes (at least de facto)... or 3 if you count Benny! Oh boy!

Bottom line... Coadiutores (I don´t know the name in English) are given to a residential Bishop for 2 reasons:

1) When the residential bishop cannot take care of the diocese as he has to (by reason of the See), and this may happen for two reasons:

a) Because the territory is too big,

b) Because there are many matters to take care of.

2) By reason of the health or advanced age of the residential Bishop. If there is not right of succession then the coadiutor is called "Auxiliary".

Actually, in a recent interview he said that he is not a very organised man so he will be relying on men who are organised types to reform the Curia for him.

Now, this revelation made me wonder what it was that they wanted Bergoglio for. He has not been a successful bishop in Argentina, presiding over a pretty catastrophic decline in his own diocese. So he has hardly been picked as some kind of poster boy for how successful V2 can be if implemented "correctly." And he has manifestly not been chosen to impress/deceive traditionalists.

In fact, he does not appear to have any qualifications at all, beyond a nice smile. He just hates the papacy. Is that what they wanted? Somebody who would trash it more radically, more thoroughly, than any of his predecessors?

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Jun 18, 2013 1:26 am

TKGS

Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:57 amPosts: 391Location: Indiana, USA

Re: Bergoglio information

John Lane wrote:

Actually, in a recent interview he said that he is not a very organised man so he will be relying on men who are organised types to reform the Curia for him.

Now, this revelation made me wonder what it was that they wanted Bergoglio for. He has not been a successful bishop in Argentina, presiding over a pretty catastrophic decline in his own diocese. So he has hardly been picked as some kind of poster boy for how successful V2 can be if implemented "correctly." And he has manifestly not been chosen to impress/deceive traditionalists.

In fact, he does not appear to have any qualifications at all, beyond a nice smile. He just hates the papacy. Is that what they wanted? Somebody who would trash it more radically, more thoroughly, than any of his predecessors?

I believe the cardinals, as a body, were looking for someone who would bring the fun of John Paul 2 back to the Vatican. Few cardinals, if any, have any love for tradition, whether it be in the doctrines, disciplines, or the "smells and bells". Then why did they pick Ratzinger? I venture to guess that they thought he would be a transition between the elderly and ailing John Paul 2 and a youthful and vigorous successor; but I don't think they fully realized that Ratzinger liked the traditional trappings of the Church quite as much as it turned out that he did.

Furthermore, it doesn't appear that Bergoglio will establish or enforce any sort of discipline, so the cardinals are truly free to do whatever they like and enjoy their perks of office to the fullest. This is, I think, the primary reason why Bergoglio was elected. And, so far, it appears that he will be giving them exactly what they want!

Tue Jun 18, 2013 12:00 pm

Alan Aversa

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:40 amPosts: 438Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: Bergoglio information

General Audience June 19, 2013 wrote:

I spent forty minutes, more or less, half an hour, with an Evangelical pastor and we prayed together, and sought unity.

The whole thing is worth reading, as it reveals a totally heterodox ecclesiology, one in which FAITH has no significance whatsoever.

Quote:

... In the Church therefore, there is a variety, a diversity of tasks and functions; there is not flat uniformity, but the wealth of gifts that the Holy Spirit distributes. However, there is communion and unity: all are in relation with each other and all combine to form a single vital body, deeply attached to Christ. Let us remember well: being part of the Church means being united to Christ and receiving from Him the divine life that makes us live as Christians, it means remaining united to the Pope and the bishops who are instruments of unity and communion, and it also means learning to overcome personal favoritisms and divisions, to understand each other better, to harmonise the variety and wealth of each one; in a word, to better love God and the people near us, in the family, in the parish, in the associations. In order to live, body and limbs must be united! Unity is superior to the conflicts, always! Conflicts, if they’re not resolved well, separate us from one another, separate us from God. Conflict can help us grow, but it can also divide us. Let’s not take the path of division, of fights among ourselves! All united, all united with our differences, but united, always: this is Jesus’ path. Unity is superior to conflicts. Unity is a grace that we must ask from the Lord, so that He may free us from the temptations of division, of struggles among us, of selfishness, of gossip. How much harm gossiping does, how much! Never gossip about the others, never! How much damage comes to the Church from divisions between Christians, from being biased, from petty self-interests!

The divisions among us, but also the divisions among the communities: Evangelical Christians, Orthodox Christians, Catholic Christians, why are we divided? We must seek to bring unity. I will tell you something: today, before leaving the House [Domus Sanctae Marthae], I spent forty minutes, more or less, half an hour, with an Evangelical pastor and we prayed together, and sought unity. But we must pray among ourselves as Catholics and also with the other Christians, pray that the Lord may give us unity, unity among us. But how can we achieve unity among Christians if we Catholics are unable to achieve it among ourselves? To have it in our family? How many families fight and are divided! Seek unity, the unity that makes the Church. Unity comes from Jesus Christ. He sends us the Holy Spirit to create unity.

Anyway they were there for the blessing of a statue of St Michel, but the strange (strange?) thing is that in that sculpture it is written something like: "Benedict XVI, 8th year; Francis, 1st year".

This is no surprise at all. Also I always wonder why the site Catholic Hierarchy still counts the days of Ratzinger (I know, I know that is not an official website, but I think it is still strange, isn`t it?).

I also think with affection of those Muslim immigrants who this evening begin the fast of Ramadan, which I trust will bear abundant spiritual fruit. The Church is at your side as you seek a more dignified life for yourselves and your families. To all of you: o’scià!

"O’scià!" is a local greeting on the island, and it's also the name of a left-leaning music festival held on the island each year, which is aimed at promoting more immigration from Africa etc. to Italy. So Bergoglio is stating his belief in the efficacy of fasting undertaken as a part of a false religion, and also indentifying himself with the entire pro-third-world-immigration leftie agenda.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum